Now they tell us that the contaminated water from the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident may have reached the international date line in 4 to 5 months after the accident.

That would be in July-August time frame.

The map is cut off right at the international date line, as if that's all the researchers cared about. (After all, they are the government researchers at this government Agency.) But rest assured as the researchers and the reporters all say there will be no effect on health. (Whose health?)

The water contaminated with radioactive materials from the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant has spread to the international date line, about 4000 kilomters east of Japan -- that is the simulation result announced by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) announced. The simulation uses cesium-137 density. It is less than one-2000th of the safety standard for drinking water [200 becquerels/liter, post-Fukushima], but it is more than 10 times as much as that before the accident.

The researchers at JAMSTEC led by Y. Masumoto used the densities of radioactive materials measured in the ocean near Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant to simulate the dispersion considering various factors including ocean convection.

Highly contaminated water leaked from the pit near the water intake canal at Fukushima I Nuke Plant after the accident. According to the simulation, the contaminated water first spread along the coast, and gradually spread offshore. It was further dispersed in the complex movement of the Kuroshio (Japan) Current and the Oyashio (Kurile) Current, and it reached the international date line in 4 to 5 months after the accident [, according to the simulation].

事故で大気中に拡散した放射性物質が海に降ったと仮定しても、広がり方に差はあまりなかったという。

The researchers say there would not have been much difference in dispersion if they had assumed the radioactive materials dispersed in the atmosphere had fallen on the ocean.

１１月末で放射性セシウム１３７の濃度は約１リットルあたり０．１～０．０１ベクレルと、厚生労働省が定めた飲料水の基準の２千～２万分の１。

As of the end of November, the density of radioactive cesium-137 would be 0.1 to 0.01 becquerel per liter, or one-2000th to one-20000th of the standard for drinking water that the Ministry of Health set.

The survey by the Ministry of Education shows several becquerels per liter of radioactive cesium in the sea water near Fukushima I Nuke Plant. The numbers [from the JAMSTEC simulation] are lower, but they are still 10 to 100 times as much as the pre-accident levels. Effects on marine life should be monitored carefully.

What does the drinking water standard for humans have to do with the cesium-137 density in the middle of Pacific Ocean? (What about for plankton and fish?)

Yomiuri Shinbun has the numbers much higher than Asahi. The paper says there are locations with 1 to 5 becquerels/liter cesium-137 in the simulation, though most fall between 0.01 to 0.5 becquerels/liter. That's 10 (0.01 becquerel/liter locations) to 5000 (in 5 becquerels/liter locations) times the pre-accident, as Yomiuri says the pre-accident level is 0.001 becquerel/liter.

But then, the chart Yomiuri puts up does not have the legend to figure out the density.

Ah. The reporters... I'm looking for this particular paper, but so far unsuccessful.

I find it very interesting that a website devoted to spreading news about one of the worst disasters to strike humanity attracts anti-science Koch-head trolls. Go away, nasty troll! If you hate science so much, turn off your computer!

A more than 10X increase is stunning. Given the size of the Pacific, such an increase would indicate a rather larger release than has been assumed to date.It will be important to see this simulation result tested with the actual data from the samples.

"That's 10 (0.01 becquerel/liter locations) to 5000 (in 5 becquerels/liter locations) times the pre-accident, as Yomiuri says the pre-accident level is 0.001 becquerel/liter".Maybe Yomuri Shinbun should clarify what is that 0.001Bq/l which the data are compared to.I think it is better to add that (mainly because of potassium-40) the sea has about 12Bq/l. Therefore 0.01Bq/l is about 1/1200 than before the accident.UNCONTAMINATED milk is 50Bq/l.UNCONTAMINATED human body (and beaf) about 150Bq/Kg.So plankton and fish will be safe if they aren`t very near FK1.

There's really no comparison between the effects of exposure to potassium-40 and isotopes like Cesium. Saying the human body or milk contains radioactive potassium doesn't make cesium less damaging to the human body.

I think it's all part of the process of human evolution. Part of the learning curve if you will. There was so much GARBAGE going on BEFORE this incident, now with it have happened and it's after effects to be felt for generations, hopefully humanity as a whole or at least those with responsibilities will learn to live up to those responsibilities and play a more positive role on the Earth as the powerful beings we are.

I look around me and see a vast majority of people don't care, and could not care less. I, however, know this to be bad news and that our government is going to seriously damage the genetic compliment on every living thing if allowed to.

"There's really no comparison between the effects of exposure to potassium-40 and isotopes like Cesium. Saying the human body or milk contains radioactive potassium doesn't make cesium less damaging to the human body."Exactly, it`s not less damaging, but at THIS density it`s FAR MUCH less damaging.Or you think there is difference between "natural" and "man made isotopes" beyond their halflife and energy?Have you compared halflife times and decay energy of gamma emission of K-40 and Cs-137 before writing your statement?Besides, NATURE made a lot of cesium a long time ago with a perfect nuclear fission reactor in Oklo and it worked for hundreds of thousands of years, you can imagine how much cesium it was made.Of course it would have been much better that a tsunami didn`t kill 20,000 people and stopped 12 of 13 diesel emergency generators. But given the disaster that happened I don`t scream that I (or fishes) will die if at the end we`ll have 0.0000436Bq/L, counting only the Pacific Ocean. And you shouldn`t if you checked the oceanic currents posted above.BTW in the Ocean there are also 0.033Bq/L of NATURAL Uranium with a halflife of 4.47 billion years.But if you want to take it out of the ocean, don`t worry, Japan already found a system to get it and make nuclear fuel at 1000$/pound.P.S.Beta emissions:Cs-137 0.19(+0.065)MeV, K-40 1.33MeV (5.2 times).Gamma emissions:Cs-137 (Ba-137m) 0.60MeV, K-40 1.460MeV (2.4 times).Halflife:Cs-137 30 years, K-40 1,248,000,000 years (41,600,000 times).[note: could "anonimous" at least number themselves? thanks]

@kumachan, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the issue is not the "effect on human health". How do you come up with the number "0.0000436Bq/L"? Are you counting on radioactive cesium to be dispersed evenly across the entire Pacific Ocean? The simulations by researchers don't seem to support that idea.

If you think citing the numbers means you are speaking the "facts", you are more like TEPCO engineers.

By the way, are you a reincarnation of the poster who insisted on "facts" from people who comment?

1- That contamination has no effect on any health. The discussion is going to be about the higher deposits on the bed of the beaches near FK1. And we will see with time what is the answer.

2- Simulations give the most probable dispersion in these few months. And I have no problem to agree with them. But on the other hand I hope you are not implying it will suddenly stop dispersing or being half every 2 or 30 years.

3- You are free to postulate that it will disperse only in one tenth of that volume and use 0.000436Bq/L instead of 0.0000436Bq/L. Does it change anything? Make it one hundredth.

4- Nuclear material released by nuclear bomb testing has been 500 times the one released by Chernobyl. And Chernobyl released 50 times (after the last update) that of Fukushima.Today, the cesium from nuclear bomb testing has given us 2-3Bq/m3 in the West Pacific, 2.5-3.3Bq/m3 in the East Pacific, 1.5-2.5Bq/m3 in the Atlantic and 5.4Bq/m3 in the Mediterranean Sea. This allow me to think that I`m not so crazy thinking that time will give us a bit more of dispersion and the release of Fukushima (due to the biggest earthquake in Japanese history) will have a much lower effect compared to everything else.

5- If I use a number which comes from the laws of physics compared to someone that says "I am god and I know that cesium is worse than k-40 because I say so", well, until this god won`t change the universal gravitational constant, I`ll stick with the numbers. I`m curious, what should I use to evaluate how much I am contaminated? An Apache medicine-man?Please tell me what should I have done after I read a STATEMENT that non only is unproven, but it`s also proven wrong.

6- I don`t ask a "fact" from a comment. I ask a fact based on something when someone is "stating a fact". If someone says "I hate nuclear or blondes or butterflies" I might even agree.If someone STATES that all blondes are stupid or this level of contamination will destroy the Earth or butterflies will kill the human race if there is more than one per square mile, I want to see on what is based this "STATEMENT".BTW, it seemed to me that you just asked me to prove/explain my reasoning, or not?

Yes, I have to correct "UNCONTAMINATED milk is 50Bq/l" with "UNCONTAMINATED milk is 80Bq/l since the first mammal gave milk to her offspring".And I`m counting only N-40, then we should add tritium, C-14, radon and many more (but with lower percentage).

** "Sounds like steam age TEPCO sales science".** "UNCONTAMINATED milk is 0Bq/l"I`d say it sounds like when the Sun was moving around the still Earth.

Here the proof of my previous statements:"UNCONTAMINATED milk is 0Bq/l" shouldn`t be another of those ignorant statements that should prove themselves?Not for me of course or for those that acctually finished the primary school, but for themselves so they finally understand the world they are living in!

Anyway 18.10 in these Japanese holiday and I go out wishing you all the best.

P.S. why people the more is ignorant and the more are insulting? Or is it only on this subject? Don`t know.

Nice banana way to sidestep the facts from filthy steam age nuke lube.

All the globe blanketing life destroying Nuclear effluents are explicitly manmade poisons. No need to jump into the sun... or go to uranium cavemans rice field: he had no way to self-fill the seas with Tritium. Strontium-90. Americium etcetc 200x

The fact that the troll is not instantly calling Kumachan a nukeluber or a TEPCO employee or a papist pancake believer or a Jesuit or an ant, means one thing: the troll is able to shows courtesy but only when talking to himself.

Uncontaminated food generally should be understood of 0 Bq of ARTIFICIAL radioactivity.

Taking the bioaccumulation into consideration, your regular daily food needs to contain only about 5 Bq of radiocesium to double your internal radiation dose over the natural radiation dose.

Think about why the Soviets reduced their old 3700 Bq/kg food contamination limit to 370 Bq immediately after the Chernobyl accident, even if this worsened the already-bad food supply situation.They KNEW that not doing so would do irreversible damage to their people and reduce their future generations to degenerated humans.

The Russians are no optimistic clueless nuclear newbies like the Japanese. They had their Techa River test bed guinea pigs and know the risks.

Russians knew about harmful effect of radiation long before Chernobyl disaster. Although quite stupid to let accident happen they at least react with true fear and desperation behind attempted cover up.

Good to see you back here--your thoughtful comments are always appreciated.

You say:

"Taking the bioaccumulation into consideration, your regular daily food needs to contain only about 5 Bq of radiocesium to double your internal radiation dose over the natural radiation dose."

When looking at chronic doses, the ICRP says in their Pub 111 (kindly linked by ex-SKF several days ago):

"Twenty years after the Chernobyl accident, typical average daily intake due to137Cs for an adult in the contaminated areas around Chernobyl is in the range of10–20 Bq, and additional higher episodic intakes in the range of a few hundredBq are common due to, for example, the ingestion of wild mushrooms or berries.This results in annual effective doses in the range of 0.1 mSv."

So, if we consider the daily intake of 5 Bq as in your example, I think we can roughly assume that the annual effective dose for such chronic consumption would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.05 mSv/yr.

According to the US EPA, though, the average effective internal dose from Radon alone in the US is around 2 mSv/yr (http://epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html). This is about 40 times higher than the 5 Bq/day dose calculated above.

However, the nukelubed agenda or its camel oiled never want the Truth come out, but their emphasis is banally just covering the criminals. Here these je§uits and their brainwashed never tackle the issues honestly.

How come no darwintwist banana attack yet?

Ref. Is This the Poster Food for a Radiation Menace? NYTimes article By DENISE GRADY Published: April 11, 2011 www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/health/12essay.html?_r=1

Hello! I just checked linky and the article is still there... (!) How come? Do click and read as long as this nukepolitically incorrect article exists...

[part 1/2, sorry]It was already known from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (also from other cases but with much less people and therefore less statistical meaning/certainty) that there was the 100mSv starting level of cancer increase. It was confirmed by the Chernobyl study. But it was a surprise from Chernobyl that there was thyroid cancer in children and how much tightly it was related to iodine-131 and thyroid gland.The best proof was that thyroid increased cancer disappeared in children that were a 3 months fetus (or younger) when iodinide-131 disappeared (3 months after the accident).The reason is simple, thyroid gland begin to work when fetus is 3 months old.So, the youngest and last Chernobyl child is 25.5 years old, today.In my native country we still take care of Chernobyl children which are 5 yo TODAY!!!Does it happen in your countries too this hoax?

Going back to the 100mSv effective dose limit, how many people in Japan exceeded 100mSv?111 in March and 0 (new cases of course) in April (situation as July 13th), 119 as of today.How many died of ARS? Zero. Chernobyl: 28.What is the chance to get a cancer for these 119?Given the average Japanese 42% cancer rate, most of them have a 42-43%, 20 the 43% and 6 44-45%.

How many more are going to exceed the limit?No one, because since October the emergency limit for Fukushima1 workers has been lowered from 250 to 100mSv.

About population?No one again because of the 500Bq/Kg(or liter) limit.

Why?It is explained by the 1000Bq/Kg (of cesium-137) choice made in the "Codex Alimentarius" (latin for: food code):For adults: E = 1000[Bq/kg]* 550[kg/year]* 1,3·10-5 [mSv/Bq] * 0,1 = 0,7 mSv; 1400Bq/Kg to get 1mSv/year; 140,000Bq/Kg to get 100mSv/yFor children: E = 1000[Bq/kg]* 200[kg/year]* 2,1·10-5[mSv/Bq]* 0,1 = 0,4 mSv/year; 2380Bq/Kg to get 1mSv/y; 238,000Bq/Kg to get 100mSv/y.0.1 = "import/production factor (IPF) is defined as the ratio of the amount of foodstuffs imported per year fromareas contaminated with radionuclides to the total amount produced and imported annually in the region or country under consideration".Kg is the sum of average food and liquid ingested in 1 year.

With the Japanese choice of 500Bq/Kg (Bq/l), they (and I) would get 0.35mSv/year for adults and 0.2mSv/year for children with 10% of the food constantly at maximum level.

Given the water with basically zero contamination already a few weeks after the accident (you might remember here in Tokyo we exceeded the limit for children for about 8 hours), even eating always food at 500Bq/Kg, adults would get 0.1mSv/year and children less.BTW, the secretive government declared the exceeded limit live in front of all the TV of the world.

Population near Fukushima1 was moved the day before the first hydrogen explosion, in Chernobyl 2 days after and drinking milk from the cow kept outside the door.This and the fact that Japanese children eats a lot of fish (and therefore are naturally already filled with iodine) made and will make a huge difference.

I was clear that I was counting only the Bq/Kg from K-40, excluding BOTH artificial and other natural radionuclides, therefore the word UNCONTAMINATED.The facts that we don`t mention natural isotopes doesn`t mean they are less dangerous or it is useless to mention them when you want to explain to people thinking that they are not radioactive, or that their DNA isn`t made specifically to cope with this radiation (of course there is a limit), and they don`t know that the first radiation is given by their own mothers since they are conceived (actually, since their mothers develops oocytes).

If you don`t give people something to compare, how can they really understand a value even if the value is exact?

If someone doesn`t know anything and compare 1Bq with 0, might think that he/she is going to die, but if 1 is compared to 15,000, maybe "death" won`t be their first thought.

I`m stupid, I know nothing except that a person of 70Kg has 15,000Bq, naturally (8000 from K-40).Making the leap of faith that the biological halflife of Cs-137 of 70 days is a lie (study from Chernobyl children, other limited studies says 110 days), and without counting the natural radiation from ingested food, it would take: 15000[Bq]/5[Bq/day] = 3000 days = 8 years, 2 months and 20 days to do it!

Previous calculation was made on the assumption/statement that he/she meant 5Bq/day.If he/she meant 5Bq/Kg of solid food, it would take double that time eating 500gr (for the fattest US citizen) of solid food per day, or 33 years for most of the rest of the world.

What happen adding the biological halflife?You never double your internal dose.Not even remotely.

But what was meant with internal dose?I`m dumb, I don`t know.Because if we count only flesh (as I did), we get 0.16mSv/y, if we add the radon (of course natural) we get a total of 2.45mSv/y and without the biological halflife it will take 126 years to double the internal exposure at 5Bq/day. or 500 years at 5Bq/Kg.

And I didn`t count the difference in the emitted energy.

Can someone explain to baka kumachan?Or I`m not super dumb (just a bit) and we got another proven false statement?

BTW, are you a smoker?Because a NATURAL NO-GLOBAL OGM-FREE FANTA-FREE SUSHI-FREE smoker (not counting the obvious deseases) gets 2.8mSv/year, or an equivalent of 224,000Bq ingested.

- 35.000 of them. Which one you mean... give the page, source and linky. LOL. Whata hoax.

"But what was meant with internal dose?"

- One micro particle of any radiation source parked beside a healthy cell will eventually kill it. Be it natural or manmade. Steam age duped nuked taxpayer chances gettin one in, are now zillion times better.

Need more? Inhale. Do it deep.

Thank you nukelubed but no. Youre murderers for money. Assasins. Oh but who were the assasins called in the ol' dictionary, yes, the je§uits.

If regular daily intake of 5 Bq radiocesium results in a whole body bioaccumulation equilibrium (taking into consideration the biological half-life etc) of, say, 5000 Bq then this is not an increase of internal radiation dose of 1% against the natural 5000 Bq of K-40, but an increase of 100%.

The whole concept of radiation doses and their health effects that originates from old Hanford publications is basically flawed.

It is very difficult to find wholly healthy children in large parts of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia that had been contaminated. Practically all children there are sick of many things.

It is basically wrong to say "there is no health effect" just because cancer cases don't multiple except in areas of extremely high radiation.

It is in the very interest of the nuclear lobby to look only at cancers and to willfully overlook all other health effects caused by low radiation.

"It is basically wrong to say "there is no health effect" just because cancer cases don't multiple except in areas of extremely high radiation."

How true.

15.3. Health Consequences of Chernobyl, Yablokov et al.: Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe 3211. A significant increase in generalmorbidityis apparent in all the territories contaminatedby Chernobyl that have been studied.2. Among specific health disorders associatedwith Chernobyl radiation there are increasedmorbidity and prevalence of the followinggroups of diseases:• Circulatory system (owing primarily to radioactivedestruction of the endothelium,the internal lining of the blood vessels).• Endocrine system (especially nonmalignantthyroid pathology).• Immune system (“Chernobyl AIDS,” increasedincidence and seriousness of all illnesses).• Respiratory system.• Urogenital tract and reproductive disorders.• Musculoskeletal system (including pathologicchanges in the structure andcomposition of bones: osteopenia and osteoporosis).• Central nervous system (changes in frontal,temporal, and occipitoparietal lobes of thebrain, leading to diminished intelligenceand behaviorial and mental disorders).• Eyes (cataracts, vitreous destruction,refraction anomalies, and conjunctivedisorders).• Digestive tract.• Congenital malformations and anomalies(including previously rare multiple defectsof limbs and head).• Thyroid cancer (All forecasts concerningthis cancer have been erroneous;Chernobyl-related thyroid cancers haverapid onset and aggressive development,striking both children and adults. Aftersurgery the person becomes dependent onreplacement hormone medication for life.)• Leukemia (blood cancers) not only in childrenand liquidators, but in the generaladult population of contaminatedterritories.• Other malignant neoplasms.3. Other health consequences of the catastrophe:• Changes in the body’s biological balance,leading to increased numbers of seriousillnesses owing to intestinal toxicoses, bacterialinfections, and sepsis.• Intensified infectious and parasitic diseases(e.g., viral hepatitis and respiratoryviruses).• Increased incidence of health disorders inchildren born to radiated parents (both toliquidators and to individuals who left thecontaminated territories), especially thoseradiated in utero. These disorders, involvingpractically all the body’s organs andsystems, also include genetic changes.• Catastrophic state of health of liquidators(especially liquidators who worked in1986–1987).• Premature aging in both adults and children...

THANK YOU AREVA for this linky. And your work. Doesnt matter if u dont like persons who hate assasin-je§uits. Thanks again. Be careful.

** "- 35.000 of them. Which one you mean... give the page, source and linky. LOL. Whata hoax.".Are you saying that children conceived after the accident got thyroid cancer more often than (unfortunately) natural cases?Whould you mind to share your superior knowledge and tell us where these children got iodine-131 but for hyperthyroidism treatment?About a source for my statement... what could I choose? There must be a study made by some nazi-jewish-nuclear-psyco-pedophile.No, nothing comes to mind but Professor Gerry (Geraldine) A. Thomas, Chair in Molecular Pathology, between the first doctors to go to Chernobyl when the ex-URRS finally allowed it, and Chief of the one and only "Chernobyl Tissue Bank". The only bank of all the thyroid cancers happened until today to the REAL children of Chernobyl.Nothing worse, sorry.This is the first link I got, she`s not boring, you`ll hate her by default, but that`s life:http://www.nltv.co.uk/videofiles/GThomas0711.flvDr. Thomas presents also the plot of the 10 million contaminated children from "Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident: 20 years on.[J Radiol Prot. 2006 Jun;26(2):127-40. Epub 2006 Apr 24.]".http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16738412?dopt=AbstractPlusFrom minute 33 the plot is clear, for children 1-14yo cancers begin between 1989-90, peak 1995, over/normal in 2002.Adolescents 15-18yo cancers begin between 1989-90, peak 2001, clear decrease in 2002But all this video should be downloaded and watched.

"- One micro particle of any radiation source parked beside a healthy cell will eventually kill it. Be it natural or manmade."If it kills it doesn`t give you cancer does it?Anyway, in this case you can count the radon in the calculations.

I`m still waiting the calculations made by a not-killer not-psycho to prove that "Taking the bioaccumulation into consideration, your regular daily food needs to contain only about 5 Bq of radiocesium to double your internal radiation dose over the natural radiation dose."

I have a question for you, the most penetrating are the gamma emissions of my eaten Cs-137, do you consider there is difference if it`s emitted inside or outside the body if they generate same uSv?

** "Need more? Inhale. Do it deep.".Yes both of us inhale and ingest radioactivity, but are penetrated by beta and gamma even from outside us. How about NATURAL uranium-238, thorium-232 and K-40 in the ground?

** "Thank you nukelubed but no. Youre murderers for money.".Eventually I am "killed for free" living in Tokyo.Did you read scientists of aljazeera said I`m going to be evacuated forever? BTW, I`m in North-East Tokyo, the most contaminated of it, which means it has 5 times less radioactivity than my native country.

Good night.

P.S. Yablokov is one of those that just wrongly multiply a lot of people by low level radiation by 5%/Sv and get a lot of death without actually looking for them.

Only AREVA is Superior: he delivered the actual report-leak linky while yall assasins babble on iodine and try to keep the 25 year total blkout period going on, irradiating folks by just examining the interesting 'cases'.

I do more errors than Yablokov: however, one has to back up claims with smtg. Really, me doesnt matter in this issue. But for the tissue, distance and time are crucial.

Yablokov can be wrong in multiple issues. However, he clearly is not bought by the papal nuke industry, clearly seeks for the Truth. Whata contrast to yall no see no hear nukelubed laughing at Ukrainian child: Yablokov claims all are now sick; see list above.

Ok, you have at least given smtg to check. So far so good. Will check.

What do the feelings matter in such a continuing holocaust? Feelings manipulation - no facts, none - is the very basic je§uit trait. The chief mamillary theologian Stalin said this himself, seek follow recent comments week ago...

When you start making outrageous claims such as, "Practically all children there are sick of many things." you jump from the realm of real observation and causation, into the world of fantasy. Once we start imagining every pathology to be the result of radiation, we are pushing an agenda of voodoo and fear. If every child was sick, do you think people would (or could?) continue to live there? Yablokov casts such a wide net, that eventually all people will fall into it.

Yablokov's findings remind me of all those people who were supposedly suffering from pneumonia, nosebleeds, diarrhea, etc... in the many breathless reports coming from the alternative media covering Fukushima. I often thought that if radiation caused nosebleeds, basically everyone in Fukushima would now be walking around with a bloody nose. At minimum, the guys working at the nuclear plan should be suffering from nosebleeds 24/7.

And what about all those trees in Tokyo that were dying off. Surely Tokyo must be free of trees now that several months have passed?

I feel sorry for the Japanese now. Not because of the radiation - far from it. I feel sorry for them because now every hangnail, every case of athelete's foot, every dead tree or shrub, will attract some foreign "researcher" who will claim that the thing is caused by Fukushima.

The radon problem is indeed an important thing.We have areas in Germany with very high radon loads, where lung cancer was a common death cause of miners before the mines were force-ventilated.People living in the basement in such areas also should vent their flat thoroughly several times a day.

But as it is a airborne noble gas, it only causes external irradiation (except of that caused by the microscopic internal radium contamination) and, above all, does not bioaccumulate.So I think we cannot really compare this with elements that are readily incorporated or even "built-in" by the body like particularly I, Cs, Sr.

I again ask to not only focus on cancers only. They are just the worst, terminal case what can happen to health due to irradiation.The list of low-radiation symptoms that our Finnish troll copy-pasted in the 6:50am post is observed by many people researching low-radiation effects, not only the much-quoted and criticized Yablokov.

"I`m still waiting the calculations made by a not-killer not-psycho to prove that "Taking the bioaccumulation into consideration, your regular daily food needs to contain only about 5 Bq of radiocesium to double your internal radiation dose over the natural radiation dose."

In fact I didn't calculate, just interpolated what is being shown in the graph ex-skf presented here: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/yomiuri-cesium-in-body-will-halve-in-15.html

The value of this experiment is way underestimated, as there are very few such long-term experiments that are not classified.

Most radiation dose experiments are done using I-131. The peculiar thing about Iodine is that it is practically completely excreted after the thyroid has been saturated. This fact also is the reason why potassium iodine tablets work at all, but only if taken in time before the radioiodine is intaken.

But cesium is chemically and biologically a completely different thing, is not treated by the body the same way as iodine.

In-body accumulation of cesium, strontium etc are very different from iodine. And it makes a big difference also whether there is a one-time-intake as in most experiments aimed at finding the biological half-time, or there is continuous feeding.

As the Techa river medical studies are classified up to now, we have no exact data regarding bioaccumulation of these radioactive isotopes in human beings.

So I think it is quite safe to assume that 5 Bq daily intake of Cs can result in a whole-body accumulation of at least 5000 Bq in humans, if they result in about 1000 Bq at mice, considering the human's larger body size and so larger "buffering capacity" than in the few grams of mice bodies.

And as the normal body content of natural radionuclides is about 5000 Bq, mainly consisting of K-40 (according to the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection, which I deem a credible source), an addition of 5000 Bq of artificial radionuclides will at least double the internal dose.

But, I have to repeat, the results of long-term intake studies are usually classified as top-secret.Why this? If the results were not disturbing, why then are they hidden from the public and even from the big majority of health professionals and scientists?

If I am wrong, please tell me why, so I can understand what I concluded erroneously.

"I have a question for you, the most penetrating are the gamma emissions of my eaten Cs-137, do you consider there is difference if it`s emitted inside or outside the body if they generate same uSv?"

Your question is somewhat misleading imho.

You also have to consider where the radiation damage occurs. A whole-body dose of X uSv is something completely different than an organ dose of the same number X uSv.

Usually different elements concentrate in different parts/organs of the body, leading to very localized damage where the particular element concentrates in-body.

Iodine for example concentrates almost completely in the thyroid, but as it emits gamma rays, its contamination also affect the neighboring esophagus and the bronchies for example. Alpha and beta emitters do more localized/concentrated organ damage because of their lower range.

Gamma rays are penetrating, as you say, and cause damage wherever the gamma photon hits (or no damage if the photon passes/tunnels the body without colliding). So the damage from airborne (external) gamma radiation is nearly regularly distributed over the whole body, more in the outer parts than in the inner body.

But as the intensity of gamma radiation decreases square with distance from the source, internal gamma contamination also is way more damaging than external contamination. As with internal alpha/beta decay, internal gamma damage concentrates where the particular decaying element concentrates.

Cesium and strontium are bone-affine unlike Iodine, and so the widespread leukemia tendency and the weakened immune system of contaminated people due to bone marrow and white-blood-cell damage.

Again, please tell me if I got something wrong so I can understand better what is really happening.Thank you.

I hate to get into the middle of your discussion with Kumachan, but the chart that you referenced above (http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/yomiuri-cesium-in-body-will-halve-in-15.html) actually comes from the ICRP report I had mentioned and is for humans, not for mice.

Interpolating for 5Bq per day chronic consumption (which is what I was trying to do in my first post), would give you a full body exposure of somewhere around 800 Bq.

And please, don't worry about "getting into the middle" of another discussion. Is this because of Japanese mentality to be always polite?

Atm I'm thinking alot about the video of the Osaka students ex-skf posted today. He wrote that the Osaka mentality is considered rude by people of many later.otherlater. Japanese regions. Maybe there is some thing in common with Germany's regions mentalities? For example, the Berliners are often considered impolite and undiplomatic in some other parts of Germany as they like to say what they think even if this is insulting others often. In turn they esteem if somebody tells blunt tacheles without unnecessary wrapping. (And I am a berliner and like people getting in the middle of discussions if it is helpful, as it was your post, thanks again!)

Anyway, I'll have to read the ICRP report you linked to and think about, need to learn more. Still have to work, I'll write more in the evening.

Hello, Wastewater treatment jobs are among the most important environmental jobs. Wastewater is any water that has been affected in its quality by anthropogenic influence.Wastewater treatment careers include jobs that consist of taking wastewater and making the water suitable for people and the environment.Water is a source of life and being in this field of work doesn’t only contribute income and benefits to yourself and family but to the entire community so if you are into this field, start searching for wastewater treatment employment that suits you.WaterPlantCrossing.com Reviews

About my coverage of Japan Earthquake of March 11

I am Japanese, and I not only read Japanese news sources for information on earthquake and the Fukushima Nuke Plant but also watch press conferences via the Internet when I can and summarize my findings, adding my observations.

About This Site

Well, this was, until March 11, 2011. Now it is taken over by the events in Japan, first earthquake and tsunami but quickly by the nuke reactor accident. It continues to be a one-person (me) blog, and I haven't even managed to update the sidebars after 5 months... Thanks for coming, spread the word.------------------This is an aggregator site of blogs coming out of SKF (double-short financials ETF) message board at Yahoo.

Along with commentary on day's financial news, it also provides links to the sites with financial and economic news, market data, stock technical analysis, and other relevant information that could potentially affect the financial markets and beyond.

Disclaimer: None of the posts or links is meant to be a recommendation, advice or endorsement of any kind. The site is for information and entertainment purposes only.